Rodriguez v.  Beck		CASE NO. 113CV247583
DATE: 19 December 2014	TIME: 9:00	LINE NUMBER: 12

This matter will be heard by the Honorable Judge Socrates Peter Manoukian in Department 19 in the Old Courthouse, 2nd Floor, 161 North First Street, San Jose. Any party opposing the tentative ruling must call Department 19 at 408.808.6856 and the opposing party no later than 4:00 PM Thursday 18 December 2014.  Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel.

On 19 December 2014, the motion of plaintiff for an order quashing Defendant’s subpoenaes of Plaintiff’s medical and insurance records and for monetary sanctions was argued and submitted.

Defendant filed formal opposition to the motion.

1. Statement of Facts.

This action arises from an automobile versus pedestrian accident that occurred on 18 June 2011, when plaintiff David Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) was struck by defendant Aaron Beck’s (“Defendant”) vehicle in a Safeway parking lot as he was walking to his vehicle. Plaintiff alleges that he suffered serious injuries to his back and legs and wage loss as a result of the accident.

1. Discovery Dispute.

Defendants have issued 10 deposition subpoena is for records pertaining to Plaintiff  From State Farm, Corvel Corp., Safeway Insurance Company, American Automobile Association of Northern California, State Compensation Insurance Fund, and Everest National Insurance Co.  The subpoenas are for “any and all records,” etc.

In a series of letters, facsimiles and telephone calls, counsel met and conferred on the scope of the subpoenas without result.  Plaintiff contends that records should be limited to those pertaining to body parts injured in this incident, to wit, back and legs.  The defendant offered to limit the deposition subpoenas as requested but the parties could not agree on the time period involved.

Defendant contends that Plaintiff has claimed more than $80,000 in medical treatment.  He also claimed four days off of employment but in a deposition suggested that the injuries forced him to quit his job.  Defendant states that causation is a significant issue in this case as they have found at least three other accidents resulting in back injuries.

III.     Analysis.

1. Legal Standard.

The court may, “upon motion reasonably made by a [party] … make an order quashing [a] subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subds. (a) and (b)(1).) In addition, the court may make “any other order as may be appropriate to protect the [moving party] from unreasonable demands.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)

 

///

1. Separate Statement.

An argument can be made that Plaintiff’s motion is defective because it is not accompanied by a separate statement. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(5)[1], a motion to quash the production of documents attendant to a subpoena must be accompanied by a separate statement. Here, Plaintiff did not file such a separate statement, and his motion is therefore defective.

The Court has discretion, but is not required, to deny a motion to quash for failure to provide a separate statement. (See Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893.) Here, while Plaintiff failed to include a separate statement, she has provided the subpoenas for the Court’s review, the issues raised in the motion are narrow, and the parties’ arguments are fully developed in their moving papers. Accordingly, the lack of a separate statement will not prevent the Court from addressing the merits of the motion.

1. Relevance.

Discovery is allowed for any matters that are not privileged, relevant to the subject matter involved in the action, and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)  The “relevance to the subject matter” and “reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence” standards are applied liberally with any doubt generally resolved in favor of discovery.  (Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790.) Moreover, for discovery purposes, information is “relevant to the subject matter” if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.  (Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.)

1. Overbreadth.

Defendant has made a credible argument that Plaintiff has a medical history of injury to his back beyond the claim he is making in this case.  Plaintiff has placed his physical condition at issue by the filing of this lawsuit.  Plaintiff and his counsel should not be in the position of limiting access to relevant records by artificially limiting claims.

Defendants are prohibited by state and federal law from disseminating Plaintiff’s medical records for any unlawful purpose. (See Civ. Code, § 56.10, subd. (b)(8)(A) [provider of health care may not disclose medical information to the public without authorization or pursuant to a court order], 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(e)(1) [healthcare provider may not disclose medical information without formal discovery request or pursuant to court order].)

1. Order.

The motion of Plaintiff to quash the deposition subpoenas is DENIED.

 

 

________________­­­____________ DATED:

_________________________­­­________________________ HON. SOCRATES PETER MANOUKIAN Judge of the Superior Court County of Santa Clara

[1] “Any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement. The motions that require a separate statement include a motion: . . . .(5)  To compel or to quash the production of documents or tangible things at a deposition.”